Amazon Web Services SAP-C02 Based on Real Exam Environment

The company should purchase the same Reserved Instances for an additional 3-year term with All Upfront payment. The company should purchase a 3-year Compute Savings Plan with All Upfront payment in the management account to cover any additional compute costs. This solution will provide the company with the most cost savings because Reserved Instances and Savings Plans are both pricing models that offer significant discounts compared to On-Demand pricing. Reserved Instances are commitments to use a specific instance type and size in a single Region for a one- or three-year term. You can choose between three payment options: No Upfront, Partial Upfront, or All Upfront. The more you pay upfront, the greater the discount1. Savings Plans are flexible pricing models that offer low prices on EC2 instances, Fargate, and Lambda usage, in exchange for a commitment to a consistent amount of usage (measured in $/hour) for a one- or three-year term. You can choose between two types of Savings Plans: Compute Savings Plans and EC2 Instance Savings Plans. Compute Savings Plans apply to any EC2 instance regardless of Region, instance family, operating system, or tenancy, including those that are part of EMR, ECS, or EKS clusters, or launched by Fargate or Lambda. EC2 Instance Savings Plans apply to a specific instance family within a Region and provide the most savings2. By purchasing the same Reserved Instances for an additional 3-year term with All Upfront payment, the company can lock in the lowest possible price for its EC2 instances that run continuously for 3 years. By purchasing a 3-year Compute Savings Plan with All Upfront payment in the management account, the company can benefit from additional discounts on any other compute usage across its member accounts.

The other options are not correct because:

Purchasing a 1-year Compute Savings Plan with No Upfront payment in each member account would not provide as much cost savings as purchasing a 3-year Compute Savings Plan with All Upfront payment in the management account. A 1-year term offers lower discounts than a 3-year term, and a No Upfront payment option offers lower discounts than an All Upfront payment option. Also, purchasing a Savings Plan in each member account would not allow the company to share the benefits of unused Savings Plan discounts across its organization.

Purchasing a 3-year EC2 Instance Savings Plan with No Upfront payment in the management account to cover EC2 costs in each AWS Region would not provide as much cost savings as purchasing Reserved Instances for an additional 3-year term with All Upfront payment. An EC2 Instance Savings Plan offers lower discounts than Reserved Instances for the same instance family and Region. Also, a No Upfront payment option offers lower discounts than an All Upfront payment option.

Purchasing a 3-year EC2 Instance Savings Plan with All Upfront payment in each member account would not provide as much flexibility or cost savings as purchasing a 3-year Compute Savings Plan with All Upfront payment in the management account. An EC2 Instance Savings Plan applies only to a specific instance family within a Region and does not cover Fargate or Lambda usage. Also, purchasing aSavings Plan in each member account would not allow the company to share the benefits of unused Savings Plan discounts across its organization.

Option C is correct because using Auto Scaling groups for the backend services allows the company to scale up or down the number of EC2 instances based on the demand and traffic. This way, the backend services can handle more requests during peak seasons without compromising performance or availability. Using DynamoDB auto scaling allows the company to adjust the provisioned read and write capacity of the table or index automatically based on the actual traffic patterns. This way, the table or index can handle sudden increases or decreases in workload without throttling or overprovisioning1.

Option A is incorrect because migrating the backend services to AWS Lambda may require significant development effort to rewrite the code and test the functionality. Moreover, increasing the read and write capacity of DynamoDB manually may not be efficient or cost-effective, as it does not account for the variability of the workload. The company may end up paying for unused capacity or experiencing throttling if the workload exceeds the provisioned capacity1.

Option B is incorrect because migrating the backend services to AWS Lambda may require significant development effort to rewrite the code and test the functionality. Moreover, configuring DynamoDB to use global tables may not be necessary or beneficial for the company, as global tables are mainly used for replicating data across multiple AWS Regions for fast local access and disaster recovery. Global tables do not automatically scale the provisioned capacity of each replica table; they still require manual or auto scaling settings2.

Option D is incorrect because using Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS) and an AWS Lambda function to write to DynamoDB may introduce additional complexity and latency to the application architecture. Amazon SQS is a message queue service that decouples and coordinates the components of a distributed system. AWS Lambda is a serverless compute service that runs code in response to events. Using these services may require significant development effort to integrate them with the backend services and DynamoDB. Moreover, they may not improve the read performance of DynamoDB, which may also be affected by high traffic3.

Auto Scaling groups

DynamoDB auto scaling

AWS Lambda

DynamoDB global tables

AWS Lambda vs EC2: Comparison of AWS Compute Resources - Simform

Managing throughput capacity automatically with DynamoDB auto scaling - Amazon DynamoDB

AWS Aurora Global Database vs. DynamoDB Global Tables

Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS)